A concern brought to our attention when asking such awkward questions as, what is at the centre of contemporary curatorial practice? Or what can we identify as particular to the field of curating?, becomes a problem as soon as we attempt to address these questions in ways which try to define a singular attribute or tendency that satisfactorily appeases both questions.
At the same time there is a necessity, which all curators posses that can be recognised as the identification of a particular concern in relation to the field of cultural production. Or, to put it another way, is not the notion of a curatorial practice underlined by a particular and developed curatorial ‘sensibility’ or engagement with a precise set of ideas that are perceived, by the curator, to be in relation to specific modes of cultural production? Is it possible to say that although we are unable to define the field of curatorial production around the terms of a singular attribute, attitude or model of practice, may we instead say that the field is composed from a multitude of particular, overlapping and variable concerns that take form of practices and attempt to address modes of cultural production in both numerous and variegated ways?
Putting this to one side, what I would argue to be considered as a fundamental aspect of any understanding of curatorial production is an apparent and joined concern, not particular to the field of curating at all, but rather, shared with that of ecology. If we are able to understand ecology (outside the vernacular usage of the term), to mean a particular method or process for addressing the relations within and between an identified system, then it is possible to consider an ecology of curatorial production as a method that holds essential the apprehension of relations between individual agents, agents and objects and objects and objects.
In particular, with regard to the latter, to what extent are we able to manage, understand and interpret the relations and encounters between objects? To what extent is this concern the role of the curator? How do objects (re) act in relation with one another? And to what extent can this allow for a productive encounter with cultural production?
Contested Ground takes these questions as a basis for its position in relation to modes of cultural production, as the exhibition proposes to establish a micro field of simultaneous practices (on both curatorial and artistic levels). The contested ground formulates itself around the specific territory of relations, both physical and symbolic, that are discernable through the artwork and the work of the curators. The exhibition formally establishes itself as the result of a process of continuous affect, as each micro field comes into relation with one another to form a disjointed but formally constituted whole.
But, to what extent are we able to pull apart individual vectors at work within the exhibition and consider them in relation to one another? What are the precise terms being proposed as constitutive of a state of contestation and are we only able to consider these as physiological incursions within the space where objects impose, or are imposed, spatially or physically upon one another? Are we able to imagine a more productive encounter between objects that does not necessarily result in a homogenised or consensual approach, but rather demands us to address a more considered series of questions?
At the same time there is a necessity, which all curators posses that can be recognised as the identification of a particular concern in relation to the field of cultural production. Or, to put it another way, is not the notion of a curatorial practice underlined by a particular and developed curatorial ‘sensibility’ or engagement with a precise set of ideas that are perceived, by the curator, to be in relation to specific modes of cultural production? Is it possible to say that although we are unable to define the field of curatorial production around the terms of a singular attribute, attitude or model of practice, may we instead say that the field is composed from a multitude of particular, overlapping and variable concerns that take form of practices and attempt to address modes of cultural production in both numerous and variegated ways?
Putting this to one side, what I would argue to be considered as a fundamental aspect of any understanding of curatorial production is an apparent and joined concern, not particular to the field of curating at all, but rather, shared with that of ecology. If we are able to understand ecology (outside the vernacular usage of the term), to mean a particular method or process for addressing the relations within and between an identified system, then it is possible to consider an ecology of curatorial production as a method that holds essential the apprehension of relations between individual agents, agents and objects and objects and objects.
In particular, with regard to the latter, to what extent are we able to manage, understand and interpret the relations and encounters between objects? To what extent is this concern the role of the curator? How do objects (re) act in relation with one another? And to what extent can this allow for a productive encounter with cultural production?
Contested Ground takes these questions as a basis for its position in relation to modes of cultural production, as the exhibition proposes to establish a micro field of simultaneous practices (on both curatorial and artistic levels). The contested ground formulates itself around the specific territory of relations, both physical and symbolic, that are discernable through the artwork and the work of the curators. The exhibition formally establishes itself as the result of a process of continuous affect, as each micro field comes into relation with one another to form a disjointed but formally constituted whole.
But, to what extent are we able to pull apart individual vectors at work within the exhibition and consider them in relation to one another? What are the precise terms being proposed as constitutive of a state of contestation and are we only able to consider these as physiological incursions within the space where objects impose, or are imposed, spatially or physically upon one another? Are we able to imagine a more productive encounter between objects that does not necessarily result in a homogenised or consensual approach, but rather demands us to address a more considered series of questions?
No comments:
Post a Comment